Well, it does leave one speechless in light of Brohan's rigorous approach to statistics:

Quote:

HadCRU and Rumsfeld [2004]
By Steve McIntyre
Wegman observed last summer that climate scientists failed to involve statisticians to an appropriate degree in the work. Yesterday Simon Tett drew our attention to Brohan et al 2006 as an explanation of uncertainties in HadCRU3. Brohan et al, of which Tett is a coauthor, used the prominent statistician, Donald Rumsfeld, as an authority for their uncertainty model. Brohan et al:

"A definitive assessment of uncertainties is impossible, because it is always possible that some unknown error has contaminated the data, and no quantitative allowance can be made for such unknowns. There are, however, several known limitations in the data, and estimates of the likely effects of these limitations can be made [Rumsfeld, 2004]."

Rumsfeld, 2004 has the following reference (to a 2002 press conference):

"Question: Regarding terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, you said something to the effect that the real situation is worse than the facts show. I wonder if you could tell us what is worse than is generally understood.

Rumsfeld: Sure. All of us in this business read intelligence information. And we read it daily and we think about it and it becomes, in our minds, essentially what exists. And that’s wrong. It is not what exists. I say that...

From Brohan, et. al. (full paragraph, not taken out of context (RE: last sentance));

Quote:

To use the data for quantitative, statistical analysis, for instance a detailed comparison with GCM results, the uncertainties of the gridded anomalies are a useful additional field. A definitive assessment of uncertainties is impossible, because it is always possible that some unknown error has contaminated the data, and no quantitative allowance can be made for such unknowns. There are, however, several known limitations in the data, and estimates of the likely effects of these limitations can be made [Rumsfeld, 2004]. This means that uncertainty estimates need to be accompanied by an error model: a precise description of what uncertainties are being estimated.

And from Rumsfeld, I would choose the following verbage (since it is a matter of interpretation as to which specific part of that PC that Brohan, et. al. are referring to):

Quote:

There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns. It sounds like a riddle. It isn't a riddle. It is a very serious, important matter. There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I distinctly remember watching that PC, made sense then, and still makes sense now.

So basically, the paper cites reference about uncertainties, and goes on in the next sentence to explain what error estimates can be made, and then goes on to make said error estimates. That also makes sense to me.

PS - More crapola from a GW skeptic website, whodathunk!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

From Brohan, et. al. (full paragraph, not taken out of context (RE: last sentence));

And from Rumsfeld, I would choose the following verbage (since it is a matter of interpretation as to which specific part of that PC that Brohan, et. al. are referring to):

I distinctly remember watching that PC, made sense then, and still makes sense now.

So basically, the paper cites reference about uncertainties, and goes on in the next sentence to explain what error estimates can be made, and then goes on to make said error estimates. That also makes sense to me.

PS - More crapola from a GW skeptic website, whodathunk!

My shock had nothing to do with WHAT Brohan was saying, but that in a scientific paper he would cite Rumsfeld for any reason, especially on uncertainty. This is supposed to be a scientific paper.

It was stunning as a faux pas, the most generious take must be that he thought it was a bit of levity...god only knows.